Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

[~Lyric~]

My Heart just aches for Holly's Family~

“Don’t forget about justice for Holly. We don’t want people to be a part of the sideshow the lawyers are creating in our daughter’s case,” Bobo’s mother Karen said following the hearing.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/25615439/hearing-addresses-immunity-agreement-in-bobo-case

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WSMV:


According to Austin's attorney, prosecutors are trying to indict Austin even though they say he's held up his end of the deal.

"Where is the case? There is no pending criminal case. There is not a criminal case against Shayne Kyle Austin," said Luke Evans during court.

The state was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.

According to Evans, the district attorney's office says the immunity agreement was based on complete truthfulness, and the D.A. believes Austin lied about what happened.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/25616279/suit-against-holly-bobo-prosecutors-to-be-heard

 

[~n/t~]

Respectfully, the various writings about the role of motive has nothing to do with what I said. I stand by my comment. I cannot ever remember seeing a former jury member say they found someone not guilty solely because motive was lacking in the prosecution's case. Proof yes, motive no.

I never said motive was the only factor in a jury's decision. Read back.

The onus is on the prosecution to present the case to the jury. I posted the W5 questions and the How.

I don't have time to research every case where motive was an issue but here is one of them.

The jury never really had doubts, said Blasi, the jury foreman.

“We finally told the two jurors favoring guilty: ‘Look, there’s no motive, no witnesses, no weapon found. And you are ready to find this guy guilty of a triple first-degree murder? Because he took a car?’

“We were cordial,” Blasi said. “It was not a hard decision to make.”

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/08/24/2961661/aftermath-of-1988-wichita-murder.html#storylink=cpy

So, yes, they do consider motive!

 

[~n/t~]

Thanks for the updates DGC!! :loveyou:

Are they back from recess? Heading home now but will catch up tonight!

 

[maskedwoman]

I never said motive was the only factor in a jury's decision. Read back.

The onus is on the prosecution to present the case to the jury. I posted the W5 questions and the How.

I don't have time to research every case where motive was an issue but here is one of them.



So, yes, they do consider motive!

~n/t~, you are responding to something I did not say. I never said juries don't consider motive. That would make me an idiot. In each situation you have quoted, the jury had other problems besides motive. I was very specific that if you have proof they DID commit the crime, you don't necessarily need to know WHY.

Unless you have any cases to quote where the jury voted not guilty SOLELY because motive was lacking, then we're having two different conversations.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Thanks for the updates DGC!! :loveyou:

Are they back from recess? Heading home now but will catch up tonight!

:seeya: You're welcome ! And couldn't find anything after that recess.


And don't forget tomorrow is JA's arraignment ... and that will be very interesting !

:moo:

 

[SteveS]

~n/t~: Are they back from recess?

... couldn't find anything after that recess.

After the recess, the judge did make a ruling, of a fashion. She declared that the Chancery Court in which they had taken the case for a determination was the wrong venue, and she punted it to the Circuit Court to determine. Given her relative inexperience as a judge and the import of the decision, it was probably a wise move of her to get it out of her hands.

No word, from what I can tell, as to when it might go before the Circuit Court.

DECATURVILLE, TN (WSMV) -

A judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a suspect offered immunity for his testimony against suspects in the disappearance and murder of Holly Bobo will be heard in circuit court.

Decatur County Chancellor Carma D. McGee ruled Tuesday that Shayne Austin's lawsuit against prosecutors over their plans to revoke his immunity agreement should be heard in circuit court.

According to Austin's attorney, prosecutors are trying to indict Austin even though they say he's held up his end of the deal.

"Where is the case? There is no pending criminal case. There is not a criminal case against Shayne Kyle Austin," said Luke Evans during court.

The state was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.

 

[reedus23]

I tend to disagree. It's a case of conflicting "rights" and I think the right of the potential defendant is a much higher priority here.

If the state is inconvenienced, that's their own fault. No one forced them to make a deal. But they did.

I understand the state's right/desire to be able to keep their evidence close to the vest, but (a) they have to disclose it to the defendants anyhow, pre-trial, by law, and (b) imo once the deal is made, it's a contract, and the one granted immunity has the right to what he bargained for and to protection from self-incrimination, absent any actual proof that he violated the deal.

Just as I said this Court had no jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit, I will stand by my position that ultimately Austin will be told he can only bring up the immunity agreement in a Motion to Dismiss if and when charges are filed. Frankly, if the DA is contemplating charging him, I just wish they would. Force the defense's hand to raise it in a Motion to Dismiss instead of allowing this circus to continue.

 

[reedus23]

~n/t~: Are they back from recess?



After the recess, the judge did make a ruling, of a fashion. She declared that the Chancery Court in which they had taken the case for a determination was the wrong venue, and she punted it to the Circuit Court to determine. Given her relative inexperience as a judge and the import of the decision, it was probably a wise move of her to get it out of her hands.

No word, from what I can tell, as to when it might go before the Circuit Court.

DECATURVILLE, TN (WSMV) -

A judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by a suspect offered immunity for his testimony against suspects in the disappearance and murder of Holly Bobo will be heard in circuit court.

Decatur County Chancellor Carma D. McGee ruled Tuesday that Shayne Austin's lawsuit against prosecutors over their plans to revoke his immunity agreement should be heard in circuit court.

According to Austin's attorney, prosecutors are trying to indict Austin even though they say he's held up his end of the deal.

"Where is the case? There is no pending criminal case. There is not a criminal case against Shayne Kyle Austin," said Luke Evans during court.

The state was seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed.

SteveS, or anyone..can you help me out here. The reporting is kind of vague and I'd love to see the Court's actual order. Did the Judge simply transfer or certify the case to Circuit Court or did the Judge actually dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, instructing Austin that only the criminal Court can decide these issues..i.e. after criminal charges are brought.

 

[tlcya]

this is basic contract law sort of right? The immunity agreement is a contract between the witness and LE. I will do X Y and Z and you will, in return, not charge me with L, M, N or P.

Witness has ostensibly provided the X Y and Z and thus far he has not been charged with L M N or P. So thus far no contract has been broken and therefore I think that makes this motion premature regardless of which court hears it.

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

SteveS, or anyone..can you help me out here. The reporting is kind of vague and I'd love to see the Court's actual order. Did the Judge simply transfer or certify the case to Circuit Court or did the Judge actually dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, instructing Austin that only the criminal Court can decide these issues..i.e. after criminal charges are brought.

My understanding is it was transferred. No charges, yet.

 

[~n/t~]

this is basic contract law sort of right? The immunity agreement is a contract between the witness and LE. I will do X Y and Z and you will, in return, not charge me with L, M, N or P.

Witness has ostensibly provided the X Y and Z and thus far he has not been charged with L M N or P. So thus far no contract has been broken and therefore I think that makes this motion premature regardless of which court hears it.

MOO

TBI claims he did not provide XYZ. Prosecution wants immunity deal tossed so they can charge him. IMO

 

[~n/t~]

I don't understand why it wasn't brought to the proper court to begin with. Who decides what court?

 

[pieper4]

marking my spot.... thanks to all for posting the links/info.

 

[~n/t~]

~n/t~, you are responding to something I did not say. I never said juries don't consider motive. That would make me an idiot. In each situation you have quoted, the jury had other problems besides motive. I was very specific that if you have proof they DID commit the crime, you don't necessarily need to know WHY.

Unless you have any cases to quote where the jury voted not guilty SOLELY because motive was lacking, then we're having two different conversations.

This will be my last post on this topic. The discussion all started when I posted that I felt motive will be crucial in this case because we have 2 defendants and possibly more. IMO the jury will want to know who pulled the trigger (figure of speech). The onus will be on the prosecution to provide the jury with the "why". Why did ZA target Holly? Or why did JA ? Or did they both? If so, why?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I frankly don't think Austin has a chance in hades of winning this.

If the DA has evidence to charge him with something other than what was in the immunity agreement there isn't anything Austin or his attorney can do about it.

All they gave Austin immunity on was what he did after Holly was murdered.

Even if the DA doesn't get that part of the deal rescinded.....the immunity deal never included giving him immunity if he took part in the actual kidnapping and murder of Holly.

If the DA now has evidence that Austin was involved in any manner in the actual kidnapping or brutalization or the murder of Holly... then no one can stop the DA from bringing those charges against him. Not one thing was mentioned in the immunity deal that would cover those charges.

I do expect him to be charged and it certainly wont be as an accessory after the fact as he is claiming, imo. They may even decide not to charge him on those charges if the charges they do file will give him much more time if convicted. It will be a much more serious charge and most likely he will also be charged with making a false statement and possibly obstruction of justice.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This will be my last post on this topic. The discussion all started when I posted that I felt motive will be crucial in this case because we have 2 defendants and possibly more. IMO the jury will want to know who pulled the trigger (figure of speech). The onus will be on the prosecution to provide the jury with the "why". Why did ZA target Holly? Or why did JA ? Or did they both? If so, why?

The witnesses who are going to testify will know what the A-Train's motive was.

I think showing motive in this case will be easier than most. With all the yapping and bragging they did I think it is the same motive like it is every time a young beautiful woman is kidnapped and murdered by males. She was kidnapped to be repeatedly raped and brutalized just like all the others were before and after Holly.

In most cases where a female is kidnapped and murdered there are no eye witnesses that saw her alive between the time she was kidnapped and murdered. This is a very unique case where eye witnesses were present.

But I have never seen a jury vote NG because a motive wasn't presented. They will be looking at the evidence that will prove whether they are guilty no matter why they did this.

Motives are only guesswork anyway but may not be in this case since there are eye witnesses. But realistically no one really knows what the true motive was behind why someone murders someone anyway. That is really known only to the murderer and if they never reveal the why then the true motive remains unknown.

That is why DAs only theorize as to what the motive could have possibly been. They would have to be there to know and of course they weren't.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

this is basic contract law sort of right? The immunity agreement is a contract between the witness and LE. I will do X Y and Z and you will, in return, not charge me with L, M, N or P.

Witness has ostensibly provided the X Y and Z and thus far he has not been charged with L M N or P. So thus far no contract has been broken and therefore I think that makes this motion premature regardless of which court hears it.

MOO

"So thus far no contract has been broken"... That would be true if the DA hadn't sent the letter. But once it was sent, there is no question under the law that the letter itself would be considered a breach of contract. A statement that "I don't intend to honor our contract" is a breach, and there would certainly be no difficulty in proving that such a declaration was made by the DA.

The only defense that the DA would have would be if SA had breached the contract first. So far, we have seen no evidence of that.

 

[SteveS]

I don't understand why it wasn't brought to the proper court to begin with. Who decides what court?

There is actually an overlapping of Chancery and Circuit courts and what they cover, under TN law, but in general I believe the Circuit courts will handle criminal cases as well as other disputes whereas the Chancery will not.

I think it was brought to Chancery as a matter of contract law, but Chancery felt that since it might also bear on criminal, it should be decided by a Circuit court who will at times deal with both categories.

 

[SteveS]

SteveS, or anyone..can you help me out here. The reporting is kind of vague and I'd love to see the Court's actual order. Did the Judge simply transfer or certify the case to Circuit Court or did the Judge actually dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, instructing Austin that only the criminal Court can decide these issues..i.e. after criminal charges are brought.

I did not see the order itself, but unless the reporters totally botched the information, the case was formally referred (ie transferred) to the Circuit Court for disposition. (From what I have read, I do not think it was dismissed with an order to refile.) The CC would then treat it as a case that had been filed there and the parties will adjudicate it there.

The plaintiff's assertions and the reply by the DA are already completed, so I suspect that the next step would more or less be the same hearing we had today, but in front of a different judge, on the DA's motion to dismiss.